Information on this site is for educational purposes only and is not intended as legal advice. If you have a legal problem, consult your institutional counsel or an attorney licensed to practice law in your state. Information and views presented in this blog are solely those of the individual contributors and not their employers.

Campaigns seeking the removal of monuments perceived as discriminatory have begun to garner significant support nationwide. The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) recently identified over 1,500 monuments, buildings and symbols located in public spaces throughout the U.S. that honor the Confederacy and Confederate soldiers or leaders. In a similar vein, The New York Timespublished a map of monuments that are slated for, or have already been, removed. Many of the monuments listed are on or adjacent to college campuses. This movement has been spurred, in part, by increases in on-campus racial incidents, including leafletting and posting of fliers (the SPLC also documented 329 fliering incidents at 241 different campuses between March 2016 and October 2017). These incidents, along with the increase rallies sponsored by White Supremacist-affiliated groups, like the violent rally in Charlottesville last August have led to greater discussion of the significance of monuments and other public installations that may reinforce racist ideology.

Monuments, as well as other varieties of installed art and honorifically named structures all function as a part of an institution’s identity. Given the current climate, it would be advantageous for universities and colleges to be (a) aware of relevant legal and ethical issues, and (b) proactive in their handling of controversial monuments and art installations. As institutional agents are tasked with providing an environment in which students, faculty and staff have equal opportunity to pursue their work or education in spaces that are free from discrimination, it is important that curation of these objects be thoughtful.

Last year, Indiana University (IU) confronted controversy regarding the depiction of a KKK rally in one panel of a mural sequence by American Regionalist painter Thomas Hart Benton, titled “A Social History of Indiana” (1933). Within the context of the mural cycle, the rally depiction is anti-Klan; however, the panel is isolated from the rest of the mural panels (leaving it decontextualized from the larger narrative) and located inside a lecture hall where (among other things) freshman orientation is held. IU’s administration ultimately declined to remove the mural, but analysis of the arguments for removal, as well as the administrative response, provides an opportunity to examine the intersection of institutional policies governing anti-discrimination and freedom of expression.

In the petition calling for the mural’s removal, former IU student Jacquline Barrie argued the depiction, even if designed to be anti-Klan, inaccurately presents racial discrimination and white supremacy as historical, while recent events indicate these problems persist. Additionally, Barrie argued the mural violates the University’s Statement on Diversity and the Code of Student Rights, Responsibilities and Conduct. These policies indicate students have “the right to study, work, and interact in an environment that is free from discrimination in violation of law or university policy”, which Barrie reasoned had been violated by requiring students and faculty to work in view of the KKK rally depiction.

The administrative response, penned by IU Executive Vice President and Provost Lauren Robel, emphasized the importance of context: she described the history of the mural, outlined reasons why adequately informing students of the significance of the mural has presented challenges, discussed the breadth of roles art serves (including presenting controversial or challenging material) and—perhaps most importantly—validated that the image may cause students to feel offended or upset. The final decision—to leave the murals in place, but to cease using the space as a classroom—reflects a willingness on the part of the institution to respond to the concerns of their community without censoring a historically valuable work of art.

There isn’t extensive legal precedent for this kind of issue; however, there is some indication that any legal decisions would be highly contextual. In O’Connor v. Washburn (2004), for example, the court rejected the plaintiff’s request that a statue entitled “Holier than Thou” be removed because of purported “anti-Catholic” sentiment. The decision, which denied the plaintiff’s request for removal and for nominal damages, took into consideration both subject and display context in determining there was no reason to believe a “reasonable observer” would view the sculpture as an endorsement of anti-Catholic sentiment on the part of university officials. Although the objection to this sculpture was based on religious (not racial) discrimination, the decision’s focus on the perception of a “reasonable observer” suggests that public opinion matters a great deal. Colleges and universities may, therefore, have a vested interest in maintaining an open dialogue regarding all campus art and monuments: items not perceived as discriminatory upon installation may become controversial in the future as public perceptions of prejudice and discrimination evolve.

Solutions that simply change the viewing context of a work of art may not always be the correct response; however, the sensitivity of IU’s administrative response offers a model for upholding the ethical values presented in university policies. Attendance at a university is a contract between the student and institution, one in which the health of the community relies upon awareness of student, faculty and staff interests. The current racial climate at many campuses has underlined that racism and discrimination remain a very real part of the community. How administrators respond to and support their students on these difficult issues can reflect their commitment to supporting an equitable academic community.

This post was authored by Amelia King-Kostelac, an art historian and doctoral fellow in the Department of Educational Leadership & Policy Studies at UTSA.

In the days after Trump’s election, the concept of a sanctuary campus drew attention. The term, “sanctuary” has also faced political backlash with some states proposing bills to revoke funding to sanctuary cities or sanctuary campuses. While the term, sanctuary, can be highly charged, on both sides, there has been less attention to the legal basis or protections the term may or may not confer on students. This raises the question: are sanctuary campuses a matter of semantics or do they really make students, specifically undocumented students, more secure?

First, it is important to have an historical context: the idea of a sanctuary campus grew from sanctuary cities. While there are different definitions, a sanctuary city is generally defined as having local officials (and law enforcement) agree to limit cooperation with federal immigration officials. However- the term, “sanctuary campus” can have differing definitions- from providing financial aid or not allowing immigration authorities on campus, and there are concerns that it does not provide any legal protection. Currently, students’ immigration statuses are considered students records and are thus confidential and protected under the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA). Colleges and universities cannot release information without student consent or a court order. Because a court order can be obtained, often easily, one concern about sanctuary campuses is that they offer students false hope. Colleges and universities have a responsibility to protect students on campus. With FERPA protections in place, do campuses need to consider the “sanctuary” label? As with so many educational policies, the answer may vary by state.

For example, in Texas, which was also the first state to pass a law allowing in-state tuition for undocumented students who graduated from Texas high schools, there are heightened concerns about protections for undocumented students because of Senate Bill 4 (SB 4), signed into law on May 7, 2017. SB 4 was and is highly controversial. It legislated specific actions all law enforcement and campus police departments would need to follow inquiring about immigration status. Luckily/thankfully for opponents, the small border town of El Cenizo sued the state before it could go into effect, and the court did impose an injunction.

Texas campus administrators will need to continue to watch the court case, as SB4 directly impacts universities’ campus police departments. Student groups at some public universities in Texas have tried to get their campus administrations to declare themselves a Sanctuary Campus. However, campus administrations have been hesitant to use the word, “sanctuary”, but have embraced other services. For example, the University of Texas at San Antonio, opened a Dreamers Resource Center to provide additional support to undocumented students.

A different state to consider is California, where a call to declare sanctuaries came from students and even elected officials. However, universities in California were also hesitant to use the label because of potential risks to federal funds. California does offer in-state tuition to undocumented students and does not currently have a bill similar to Texas’s SB4. Regardless of location, undocumented students across the country are fearful about their future. A Google map displays 14 declared sanctuary campuses across the country; however, the majority of campuses are labeled as “some commitment” to undocumented students. In other words, there are lots of campuses that support undocumented students, but not many “sanctuaries.”

Last May, Texas Christian University graduated its youngest graduate ever! Graduating at the age of 14, Carson Huey-You brought up new questions for college administrators to answer. The largest one being, what were his parent’s rights in regard to FERPA? This may not sound like a new question, but the pretenses of this question have changed. Any administrator that has ever had to answer a phone in a university has encountered the, “I pay the bills,” or “that is my child,” speech. The difference now is that we, as educators, are slowly starting to see an influx ofcollege students under the age of 18. This is largely due to the increase of high school students enrolled indual credits courses, thus changing how FERPA defines an “eligible student.”

The Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) states that once a student attends a postsecondary institution or reaches the age of 18, that any rights that were previously given to the parent (i.e. viewing the student’s financial, academic, or disciplinary records,) now go to the student. FERPA has been amended numerous times resulting in more than fifteen exceptions being added. One exception to FERPA that gives parents or guardians information without the student having to formally give consent is that if a student is found in direct violation of the school policy in regards to drugs or alcohol and is under the age of 21, the parents can be notified. This came about after the passing of the Higher Education Amendments of 1992.

FERPA does not give legal rights to the parents in cases of academic failure or mental health issues, which was the premise of the case ofTaylor v. Vt. Dep't of Educ. A mother sued her daughter’s high school district for not notifying her that her child was diagnosed with Attention-Deficit Disorder (A.D.D.). The mother had already been stripped of all of parental rights in a previous child custody case therefore giving her no rights to the student’s information. This differed in the case ofVan Brunt v. Van Brunt where the student was still a dependent. As long as the student is a dependent in terms of filing taxes, parents do, in fact, have the right torequest and review a student’s academic records.

Now here is the second part of the question regarding FERPA; should an exception be made in the cases of these students who find themselves under the age of 18 and in college? Because of their ages and situations, many of these students still live at home and are dependent since they do not have the resources to become independent. In most cases, a child cannotemancipate themselves until the age of 16, unless you live in California where the courts say you can petition to be emancipated at the age of 14. Are these new little geniuses afforded the same academic protection as their 18-year-old counterparts especially since they are making the same ethical decisions as an 18-year-old at the age of 14 like TCU’s Carson Huey-You?

In 2000,William Clay,from the University of Missouri – St. Louis, attempted to have a bill passed that would challenge FERPA. Clay’s bill stated that parents or legal guardians should not be notified if a student was found in direct violation of school policy, in regards to drugs or alcohol, so long as the student is at least 18 years of age. With this new age of student, theParental Rights Movement, has two goals: “(1) protect parental authority from the intrusion of state agencies; and (2) reaffirm parental direction in decisions affecting their children in the areas of education, health care, religious teachings, and discipline, including protection of reasonable corporeal discipline.” The Parental Rights Movement stands to challenge the already limited rights given to students under FERPA. With cases such asMeury v. Eagle-Union Community Sch. Corp. currently ongoing, we really must consider what rights these little geniuses actually have. In this case, the parents of the student wrote a letter supposedly containing disciplinary concerns to the student’s school. The school then sent the letter written by the parents with transcripts to other schools that the student had applied to. The court dismissed the claimed because the letter did not contain meaningful or private information. The real question is, would this have happened if the student would have had the right to not have their information shared? Also, could this become a problem moving forward?

Part Two of How Does FERPA Affect You?: 2017 by guest contributor Thomas V. Toglia, Ed.D. is now available (pp. 23-25) in techdirections. In case you missed Part One (pp. 21-25) it is still available from the September 2017 issue of techdirections.

With news breaking this afternoon, following a press conference by the US Attorney for the Southern District of New York, college basketball--months away from the first game's tip-off--has captured national attention. Four assistant basketball coaches at NCAA Division I programs, including coaches at Arizona, Auburn, Oklahoma State, and Southern California, are charged with federal bribery, fraud and other corruption charges.